F 1.2 lens spotted (?)

[Bill Burk]

I rather see that video as trickle to start a discussion on the spread (and usefulness) of these lenses.
In contrast to you 1.2 lenses are alien to me, something I never came across, only read about, and than not even as something most useful.

I believe f/1.4 "made" SLR cameras. I once had a Contaflex with a 50mm f/2.8 and focusing was not a pleasant experience with the dim finder.
(I bought it mostly for the box. It had bad fungus but came complete with warranty, box, purchase receipt with matching serial numbers and case. Gave it to a friend who was decorating her kitchen with red accents.)

Every time I contemplated an f/1.2 the price was more than I was willing to spring for...

But I think the Canon Pellix just sort of "came with" that lens... you really needed that extra half stop since you were losing it to the mirror. Like with f/1.4 and SLR's, the f/1.2 made the Pellix possible.

 

[flavio81]

I used to have a Canon FD 50/1.2L. I rarely used it wide open, but it had other attractions like a brighter focusing screen wide open, all metal construction, and was a tiny bit sharper than the slower 50mm lenses at wider apertures, plus that extra half stop sometimes meant the difference between being able to make a photograph and not, indoors in a dark club for instance. I once compared all three FD 50mm lenses reversed for macro use, and the cheapest f:1.8 was the best in that application, hands down.

From all the FD 50mm lenses (save for the "L" or "aspheric" ultra expensive lenses), my favorite is the FD 55/1.2 and the FL 55/1.2 (which is optically the same design).

This not because they are f1.2, but because the rendering, in particular the out of focus zones, is perfect and looks lovely, better than in the other 50mm FD lenses.

Thus the reason i prefer to use that f1.2 lens.

 

[AgX]

That is a good point.
I actually did not think of this when I raised the F 1.2 issue, as at least for the FD-range the plain version is nearly identical in construction to the F 1.4.

 

[flavio81]

That is a good point.
I actually did not think of this when I raised the F 1.2 issue, as at least for the FD-range the plain version is nearly identical in construction to the F 1.4.

On the FD (classic FD, not "new FD"), the FD 55/1.2 (=FL 55/1.2) has a different optical design than the FD 50/1.4.
The FD 50/1.4 SSC, FD new 50/1.4 and FD new 50/1.2 all share very very similar optical design.
The older FL 58/1.2 (=R 58/1.2) is of a different optical design than all of them.

 

[TheRook]

Would a professional photographer had paid the extra money compared to an F 1.4 lens just for that half stop gain (if he was interested in speed)?
Especially as shutters typically only got full stops.

The lens could have been supplied by the photographer's employer, rather than coming out of her own pocket.
Although the manner in which she handles the camera doesn't seem to me she was a highly experienced photographer.

 

[AgX]

Would a professional photographer had paid the extra money compared to an F 1.4 lens just for that half stop gain (if he was interested in speed)?
Especially as shutters typically only got full stops.

By the way, this resolution chart shows that there is no benefit by that F1.2 version/sample other than that half stop. (I know that there also is a aspherical version, but in another test that did no show a difference in resolution to the spherical one.)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/31067886741/

 

[Svenedin]

Olympus made 3 different 50mm lenses. The standard f1.8 and the f1.4 and f1.2. The f1.2 remains expensive and it is also heavy. I don't have a 1.2 because I could not justify the expense. I do have a 1.4 and it is a lovely lens but heavier and bulkier than the 1.8. When I had to use slow films (e.g Agfapan 25) to get small grain the extra lens speed was important (at the cost of shallow depth of field, weight, bulk and expense). When TMax 100 came out (and later TMax 400) small grain was there and the film speeds much higher so very fast lenses were less important.

 

[Les Sarile]

The drawback is that they are so bright, you need to wear shades . . .

 

[ronnies]

Could it be the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8?

Ronnie

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I had the Canon ltm 1.2, and the Nikon 50 1.2. Tmax 3200 meant I could do lowlight stuff with an f:2 lens, so the fast lenses went away. The Nikon was pretty good, I wasn't very happy with the Canon which however did come with a nice M3 attached, for $200.

 

[RichardJack]

f1.2 lenses look great and impress in my 40+ years of shooting did the extra 1/2 f-stop really matter, probably not. Once stopped down they are no better than a 50mm f1.4 or f1.7/1.8 or f2. In rare cases when bokeh matters you can make an argument the photo has a more dreamy background. I can easily get that with a 85mm f1.4 as well. To get the most out of a f1.2 at f1.2 you needed great eyesight and a split image focuser.
Back in the day we shot all our fast lenses wide open to isolate our subjects and for that dreamy effect. If I needed a higher f-stop I'd switch to a better lens or leave it home.
IMO, everyone should have one in their kit, they are fun

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Nikon pre-AI 55/1.2 and AI 50/1.2 for reference: